Jump to content

Talk:2002 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2002 Pacific hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 20, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Todo/GA

[edit]
  • I think being a GA is basically the equivalent of A-class on our assessment scale, so it should be discussed on the wikiproject page too (I have done so above).
  • The season summary section is too short - basically the same length as the intro. This should either be folded into the intro or expanded.
  • Each storm's section should have length proportional to that storm's notability (regardless of any daughter articles that cover the storm). The article violates this principle in that Fausto has the longest section by far, while Kenna has the shortest.

— jdorje (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom has failed

[edit]

The Good article nomination for 2002 Pacific hurricane season has failed for the following reason:

(References are too jargon-filled WP:CITE; article reads as more of a list than a well-written atricle.) - Davodd 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ele & Huko

[edit]

The storm tracks for Hurricanes "Ele" and "Huko" should really include the track while west of 180 meridian. Hurricanes "John" and "Li" in 1994 had full tracks including while west of the dateline, so why not these storms? RaNdOm26 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the NHC best track data included the complete tracks for John and Li. However, only the Central Pacific part of Ele and Huko is in the NHC best tracks file. The continuation had to be collected from the JTWC. It's not perfect, as the JTWC tracked both storms in the EPac too, and had a slightly different track to the CPHC (for some bizarre reason).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Pacific hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • It would be great if there were some sort of storm summary table, either an extensive one such as there is at the end of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season article, or a simple one such as there is at the beginning of the "Storm" section of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season article.
    • The lead should be expanded. For an article this length, the lead would ideally be three large paragraphs.
    • In the "Storm names" section, please give a reason for why there were two different sets of names being used.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • References are needed in several places:
    • Season summary section, 2nd paragraph, last two sentences
    • Hurricane Elida, first two paragraphs
    • Hurricane Fausto, first paragraph
    • Current ref #3 needs a title, instead of a bare link.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • I would like to see a larger summary of the season. What were the pre-season forecasts? What was the total damage caused by all the storms? What was the largest storm?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I have some concerns about the broadness of this article, as well as some other minor issues with referencing and MOS. I am putting this article on hold until these issues can be resolved. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an ACE table and a timeline. I have added references to the missing places you brought up and added a paragraph to the lead. I checked the NHC/CPC and there were no seasonal forecasts. They began in 2005 and testing starting in 2003. I added that Kenna was the most damaging and costliest to the seasonal summary. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun a copyedit of the article, working on grammar as well as removing some unencyclopedic tone. I have made it up to Tropical Storm Iselle (this is more a note for myself than anything). I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on the article this weekend, but I promise to have it done (with any remaining comments for you) by Monday night. If you have any questions, please let me know. I apologize for taking so long to finish this...some RL things have unexpectedly come up :( Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to deal with RL first, WP second. Just be forewarned that on weekdays I won't be on WP until mid-afternoon. Also, I assume that your not strikethroughing out the part about the lead being expanded means that you think it should be still longer? If so, I can handle that later this weekend. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a little extra time online this weekend, so I've completed the copy-edit of the article. The only prose issue I found was:
  • In Hurricane Kenna, second paragraph - Do the first few sentences refer to historical records or season records? Please make this clear.
The lead could be a little longer (I meant to include that in my last post, but apparently forgot). However, it's not a big deal.
Because neither of the above issues are anything except pickiness, I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work on the article, and congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2002 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2002 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split the timeline?

[edit]
No consensus to recreate the timeline article. While there is enough content to split off the timeline into a separate article, it has relatively little content for a timeline article, and multiple editors here have raised issues with the timeline article in its condition prior to the merger. Consensus is currently strongly against splitting the timeline back out of this article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since last month, I have requested the split of timeline in behalf of Modokai in the project discussion. However there is no discussion since last January, as such I opt to continue the discussion here. MarioJump83! 08:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LightandDark2000, Destroyeraa, Chicdat: Consider giving your opinions regarding this one. MarioJump83! 08:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion

[edit]

In recent days, Modokai restored a merged article Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season without telling our project about splitting. When I first caught Modokai splitting that article yesterday I reverted their edits and cautioned them about what they are doing. They told me that they aren't doing anything wrong, and I replied to them that I was just telling them to not split these articles without seeking consensus first (as well as removing the caution to assume good faith). Now they're back at it, without even searching for consensus at all. As such I had to bring this up in here (and reverting their edits once again) to prevent further edit warring and as well as seeking for the consensus by myself. Should Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season be restored? MarioJump83! 08:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioJump83: What was the rational of merging it? I'd like to see that first before making up my mind. Thanks, ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 17:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa, see Talk:Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season#Merge?. MarioJump83! 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the timeline was never completed, which is why it was merged. If Modokai wishes to split the article and complete the timeline, I don't see the issue. There's already a well-established precedent for the creation of season timelines (provided that they are comprehensive), so I don't know if there needs to be a dedicated discussion for creating a timeline for this particular season. — Iunetalk 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please disregard, I forgot that the timeline is already completed and present on the main season article. — Iunetalk 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Hurricane Fausto (2002) into 2002 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]
CONSENSUS EXISTS
Consensus exists for a merge to occur. Noah, AATalk 12:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Fails WP:NWX; no land impact and no meteorological reason for the article. This could be summarized fairly easily within the season article. Noah, AATalk 14:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Fausto is clearly unnotable, having no impacts or records to protect it from being merged to the main article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The meteorological reasoning at the time was it's regeneration north of Hawaii fwiw. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Julio (2002) into 2002 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]
CONSENSUS EXISTS
Consensus exists for a merge to occur. Noah, AATalk 12:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The season section is quite small and I don't feel there's much here that couldn't be said in the storm's section. Noah, AATalk 14:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Hurricane Elida (2002) into 2002 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]
MERGE
There is consensus to merge Hurricane Elida into the 2002 Pacific hurricane season ZZZ'S 14:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a notable storm. No records, no impacts, no casualties. It didn't even become the strongest hurricane of the season. It's only 12k bytes of information, which can be comfortably merged into its season article. Its GA status suggests that the article likely cannot be expanded further. ZZZ'S 13:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Tavantius (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Elida article is significantly longer than the Kristy article and would make the section in the 2002 EPAC hurricane season very long. The Kristy article should be merged due to how short it is, but Elida is long enough however. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kristy was only merged due to being unnotable, not because it was too short. Tavantius (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kristy’s page still is much shorter than Elida’s page however, and if Elida is to be merged into the 2002 Pacific hurricane season section, then the section would be like too big, as the Elida article is significantly larger than the Kristy article.
AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't matter. According to WP:NWEATHER, tropical cyclones should only get articles if they have severe damage or attain records; Elida attained none. Also, most of the things that are in Elida's met history are easily mergeable or just forecast statements. (Several sentences in the first paragraph alone are dedicated to the revised forecasts that the NHC did) Also, nearly all of the article is exclusively cited to NHC reports, which are primary. Tavantius (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters to me though, and the Elida article is way more lengthy than the Kristy article. Merging it would be problematic, so I think it is good the way it is.
AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article isnt that large and the storm lacks the notability for a standalone article. Noah, BSBATalk 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Hurricane Hernan (2002) into 2002 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]

Not notable (no, a tropical cyclone reaching Category 5 status does not establish an article's notability as was discussed here) with no impacts, no casualties, no damage, and no notable records (didn't even become the most intense hurricane of the season). Article is less than 800 words (765 words to be exact), including the lead and some information that is likely repeated in the tropical cyclone's subsection in the season article. By the way, the season article is 4554 words, so if the merge goes through, the season article would not exceed in size. I believe this would go uncontested (at least without a valid rationale), but I'm just making sure since this article is a good article. ZZZ'S 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1258089583"